National body

nzLARPS
#41

It seems like we’ve come to a consensus on funding that’s something like this:

  • Membership fees go to the national body, which can use those funds at its discretion
  • Other funds earned by regional branches go to that branch, to use at their discretion

I think these two items should be in the constitution. We don’t need to specify that the national body or branches can loan or lend each other funds, because that’s implied by using at their discretion.

We don’t need to discuss the question of separate or sub bank accounts further here, that’s a practical matter to be decided by the committee not written into the constitution.

So is that funding sorted?

Next, what should the national body look like? It sounds like Wellington were just voting for Auckland to be the national body to speed up the nationalisation process at the meeting. Now we’ve got time to discuss it, does anyone object to having a separate, non-localised national body?

If we do go for a separate national body, what should it look like? I don’t think that just a President is a good option - the Societies Act suggests at least a Chairperson, Secretary, and Treasurer and I think there will be enough for each of those roles to do. The Secretary will be dealing with memberships for whole country, and the Treasurer will be managing the national funds. Added to that I would suggest an Information Technology Officer, because a lot of the national body’s business will relate to online services. Personally I don’t think we need a national Marketing Officer as I think the President should cover that role, but what do others think?

With a separate national body, does anyone object to members of regional branch committees being able to also be members of the national committee? Personally I think that allowing that will make elections easier, and may make the society more efficient.

As I see it, the national body will not have nearly as much to discuss as the local bodies, so it should be able to have shorter, less frequent meetings and conduct most of its business online. So it shouldn’t be too great an added burden on branch committee members to also belong to the national committee, and as the society grows we could increasingly vote in dedicated national committee members, if we wish.

Once we get some sort of consensus here, I’m happy to draft the amendments to the constitution based on what we come up with.

#42

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]It seems like we’ve come to a consensus on funding that’s something like this:

  • Membership fees go to the national body, which can use those funds at its discretion
  • Other funds earned by regional branches go to that branch, to use at their discretion

I think these two items should be in the constitution. We don’t need to specify that the national body or branches can loan or lend each other funds, because that’s implied by using at their discretion.

We don’t need to discuss the question of separate or sub bank accounts further here, that’s a practical matter to be decided by the committee not written into the constitution.

So is that funding sorted? [/quote]

I’ve been a bit behind on keeping up with my Diatribe readings, but I am interested to see that the conclusion of the discussion is the same thing the previous committee had agreed on. It is reassuring to see the community reached the same conclusion, means we were heading in the right direction :slight_smile:

#43

[quote=“Ryan Paddy”]With a separate national body, does anyone object to members of regional branch committees being able to also be members of the national committee? Personally I think that allowing that will make elections easier, and may make the society more efficient.[/quote]Another thing to consider is getting each regional body to appoint a general officer onto the national committee as their representative.

#44

Perhaps the national committee’s hidden online forum could be accessible by all members of all regional committees? That way the regional committee members can see and comment on most of the activity, which would be largely online I think (because of the potential for national committee members from around the country).

The only additional advantage of having regional committee members actually be members of the national committee is that they would get a vote. That doesn’t seem necessary to me - the national membership will vote in the national committee, so it’s already representative of the membership as a whole.

#45

I have no objection at all. In fact my suggestion was to go one step further and simply not have a completely separate executive.

(Executive being president, secretary and treasurer and what ever other named roles are deemed necessary.)

In a previous post I suggested that the National president simply be chosen from the regional presidents (or when the National president is chosen they are then the regional president for their region.)

And similarly for the other executive positions. I’m pretty sure that the extra workload is likely to minimal, and more on the order of coordination between regions as necessary.

I’m not sure if this would work, so I’m interested in other people’s thoughts.

#46

In practice that sounds like still having a national committee, but limiting it so that only members of regional committees can be on it. Who would decide who is on the national committee with that approach?

Personally I think the membership as a whole should elect the national committee at the national AGM, to maximise how representative it is of the members’ desires. I know the national committee won’t have a huge amount of money to play with, but it will have some inexpensive but vital functions and also an important figurehead role to play.

I’d also prefer that anyone can be elected to the national committee. As we grow, restrictions may stop us from voting for a person we want for a national role. Let the people decide, I reckon.

#47

My feeling is that the National Committee should be made up of the President, Treasurer, and Secretary of each of the Regions. At the AGM, the members would vote wihch of the presidents, seccys and treasurers would be the ‘primary’. Much less beaurocracy this way.

#48

How? It’s the same amount of voting, just restricted to people who are already in regional committees.

The regional branches will elect their committees at regional AGMs, and those may be on different dates to the national AGM. So it probably won’t work, because the person we just elected to the national committee because they are on the regional committee may then be voted out of their regional committee three weeks later, or whatever.

#49

How? It’s the same amount of voting, just restricted to people who are already in regional committees. [/quote]
It’s less bureaucracy in terms of fewer committee members. And all those who are on the national committee are also closely involved with the members of NZLARPs in their region.

Naturally any separate national committee may well be closely involved with their region anyway. But my gut says that people on a regional committee are likely to know problems, issues or ideas before a separate National committee.

Well, the easy solution is to have the regional AGMs before the National AGM. A few weeks or a month before would suffice.

#50

Thinking a little more. I wonder if a solution is to simply NOT specify that the National committee MUST be separate from the regional committees…

That way it gives us the option to vote in someone who may or may not be on a regional committee.

I would suggest that initially the workload is such that being on the National committee AND a regional committee will not be a problem.

If it does become a problem then we can simply decide that the Naational and regional committees should be separate. And that decision can be made at the voting stage.

My opinion is that only the essentials required for continuous running of a society should be in the constitution. Everything else can be a “best practise” or whatever. It just keeps things nimble.

#51

So, what roles should there be on the national committee?

#52

I think almost everything Ryan posted in the first post is relevant and correct.

Especially the idea of an IT position since it’s likely to be our primary method of communication and recruitment.

It’s possible that the IT position could be a coordination role. It may not be necessary to fully have all the technical skills required for creating websites and so on. Some background would be useful, but getting other people to actually code the hard stuff would be entirely appropriate.

I’m not sure how the NZLARPs site is managed at the moment, but I wonder if a content management system would be a good idea. This would give a number of people the ability to enter information, create new pages and so on and so forth.

I know from long experience that being the only administrator for a website is a pain in the ass. It’s MUCH more likely to have fresh content if a number of people can update it and add information. But I also know that a CMS is not a final solution. There are always admin needs that go along with it. And coordination required.

#53

My view is that you don’t need to elect a National committee, just inherit it from the regions.

You simply say that the current President, Treasurer, and Secretary of each of the regions all go together to form the National committee. Each has a vote equal in weight to the number of members their region has, so no need to vote a National President etc because this role will automatically go to the largest Region. You probably don’t even need a National AGM, only a National SGM if you plan to change to constitution or similar… and have it after the regional AGMs (this does mean that the regional AGMs will need to be about the same month).

Would definitely reduce beaurocracy I think.

#54

The role of “President” is now a national role already, isn’t it? Perhaps you actually mean Regional Director in that list?

I don’t see why there should be automatically weighted votes based on membership - this would mean, as you say, that the largest region (which lets face it, is going to be Auckland for the foreseeable future) is going to be sporting the Pres, when they may not actually be the desired person for the role. Also if we have it set as you suggest then it means that the Pres also needs to be a regional director, and I thought the whole point was to get away from these sort of restrictions. I definitely think a single person should be able to hold both positions, but I’m leaning more towards the opinion they shouldn’t necessarily have to.

Also, I don’t see why there needs to be 3 members from each regional committee - it’s not a big thing now, but it means that each time we add a new regional committee we’re adding three more people (plus any extras) to the national body. I fail to see how that’s reducing beaurocracy…

#55

Erm it would mean that people vote for regional directors, and the overall president is selected by that.

I picked pres/treas/secy because these 3 posts are the only ones mandated by the incorporation laws. The National committee would have really very little to do since most things would be at regional level, so it wouldnt matter too much if it was large.

The weighting by membership - which I agree would make Auckland rule for the forseeable future - would just prevent s tiny region from having disproportionate power. This is similar to the way the US elects the president, I think, as each state senator gets proportional vote weighting (though I may be wrong about this)

#56

[quote=“Steve Shipway”]The weighting by membership - which I agree would make Auckland rule for the forseeable future - would just prevent s tiny region from having disproportionate power. This is similar to the way the US elects the president, I think, as each state senator gets proportional vote weighting (though I may be wrong about this)[/quote]I don’t think a small branch is at risk of getting ‘disproportionate power’ if one of their members happens to be voted as national president. Everybody gets to vote, after all, so they’d only get in if the majority across the whole country thought they had the chops for the job.

The US has a weird way of electing presidents. Each state has a number of places in the Electoral College to vote for. The number of spots is different from state to state, but isn’t strictly proportional to their population. The way the spots are allocated differs from state to state - some assign them proportional to the vote, others go Winner Takes All. Once voted in, the Electoral College members can vote for whoever they like, even the guy they were campaigning against - this has actually happened. I don’t think they have a particularly efficient model for us to follow.

#57

I think it is important for each region to be represented at the national level, to ensure that each region has a voice on national decisions that may affect the region.

I disagree with the approach of inheriting members from specific positions in regional committees because it restricts who can be on the national committee, and also increases the workload on regional committee members.

Here’s my suggestion for the national committee:

[ul][li]Ryan’s list of nationally elected positions, elected from the membership at the AGM. [/li]
[li]Each region elects a regional representative at their own AGM. That rep will server until the next regional AGM (i.e. may overlap national committee tenure.) Regions can decide how they elect their rep: voting, name in a hat, porridge wrestling, whatever, and can change their rep in accordance with their constitution[/li][/ul]

The other thing I’d like to see is the national committee reach decisions via consensus. Consensus is reached where:
[ul][li]Everyone agrees with a motion
OR[/li]
[li] Those who disagree are happy to disagree without blocking consensus (some may wish to have their disagreement recorded in the minutes, others may not wish to have their disagreement recorded)[/li][/ul]
In the case where someone disagrees AND wishes to block consensus, further discussion takes place and compromise is sought. The idea is to reach a mutually acceptable position.

If all else fails, you can always vote.

The value of consensus decision-making is that the decisions are widely supported, and it avoids disenfranchised minorities. The downside is that things can take longer to resolve, and there tends to be more discussion.

We use consensus in the Greens, and it works very well. Also, when we vote, we need a 75% majority to pass a motion. This is a high bar, and ensures widespread support for a motion in order for it to be passed.

#58

That all sounds pretty reasonable :slight_smile:

#59

We cannot lose sight of the fact that the majority of work is done at the regional level. The regions will have the ability to make decisions at their level. The national committee is simply there to help coordinate initiatives that are useful at a national level.

I would suggest that communication between the National committee and the regional committees be via the secretary of the National committee. Or similar. At least initially. It seems to me that communication will be just fine with the regional committees receiving information from the national secretary, and vice versa. This is partly because I see the secretaries role as one of communication, and there’s unlikely to be a lot else to do.

I think that legally a national committee has to have a president, secretary and treasurer. And so long as there is no restriction on having other members on the national committee, then more people can be added as needed.

As you can tell, I’m wary of over complicating any of the committees by creating roles that aren’t actually needed. Yet. Since the future is unknown, we need the ability to have new roles as we go. But that’s perfectly possible to do in the future, so long as we don’t close it off as an option.

ie. If in the future things get complicated enough, then the national committee can ask regional committees for a representative.

#60

If we must have regional representation on the national body, then perhaps we could give all the regional directors a vote on the national committee, making them the regional representatives? That would minimise extra voting, and the regional directors seem well placed to liaise between their regional committee and the national one.

Personally I’m not sure we need regional representation on the national committee. If the national committee is voted in by all members then it has a regional mandate in any case. I think it would be good enough to give all regional committee members access to the national body’s forum so that they can read what’s going on and put their ideas forward, and then leave the voting to the national committee. The national committee is only going to have a small pot of money to play with in any case, and it’s decisions will not be so earth-shattering that they need regional oversight.

I reckon we should give the regional committees a voice on the national committee, but not a vote as that adds complication we don’t need.

I think the consensus approach would be better achieved as a culture rather than written into the constitution, and I see it as a nice-to-have not a necessity.